Fennoscandia archaeologica XIII (1996)
M. G. Kosmenko
THE CULTURE OF BRONZE AGE NET WARE IN KARELIA
Abstract
This article presents some of the results of a study on the so-called Net Ware culture which
formed during the Bronze Age in Karelia (second half of the second - first half of the first
millennium BC) and is represented at 83 sites. Several of the main research problems are
discussed, including the origin of the culture, its spatio-temporal changes, chronology and
relation with the ancient Fenno-U grians against the background of the whole area of the culture covering vast territories from the middle reaches of the River Volga to northern Scandinavia.
M. G. Kosmenko. Institute of Language, Literature and History, Karelian Science Centre
RAN, Pushkinskaya 11, 185610 Petrozavodsk, Russia.
Archaeological sites with so-called 'net cerarnic~'
represent a considerable stratum of the prehistoric
record of Northern Europe. Within the area of this
tradition of technical pottery decoration, researchers distinguish several kinds of pottery: 'textile',
'pseudo or imitated textile', 'mat' or 'wafer' ceramics. The technically neutral term 'net', corresponding to the concept of 'reticular', is best suited
as a general name for this pottery. The overall area
of 'net' pottery covers a number of the Volga regions, the territories of Northwestern Russia, and
parts of the East Baltic region and Fennoscandia,
including Karelia (Fig. 1).
OUTLINE OF PREHISTORIC
DEVELOPMENTS
According to the summarized data of several researchers, archaeological cultures with net pottery
emerged approximately as follows. During the second half of the second millennium BC the Bronze
Age culture of Net Ware formed in an area
bounded by the Upper Volga in the south, Lake
Onega in the north, the upper reaches of the River
Sukhona in the east and in the west by the area to
the southeast of Lake Ladoga and possibly as far as
the River Volkhov. Later, during the first half of
the first millennium BC, it spread over a wide area,
extending to the coasts of the Baltic and the White
Sea, along the middle reacp.ers of the Volga to the
mouth of the River Kama, and to a lesser extent
southwards to the basin of the River Kama (Fig. 1).
In its latest stages, this culture was markedly differentiated. From the middle to the second half of the
first millennium BC it ceased to exist independently and merged with a new wave of Early Iron
Age culture of the so-called Ananyino type that
spread over the vast territories of the forest zone to
the north of the Volga between the Ural Mountains
and the Baltic Sea. Along the southern right bank of
the middle and upper Volga basin in a partially
forested steppe environment, Net Ware was made
among the Gorodetskaya and Dyakovskaya cultures at least during the first quarter of the first millennium AD. Early forms of cattle husbandry and
agriculture took root in the Volga basin, probably
as early as the Early Bronze Age, and fortified settlements appeared during the Iron Age. On the
other hand, hunting and fishing predominated in
the northern part of the forest zone.
RESEARCH PROBLEM
The general level of knowledge about the new pot51
Fig. 1. Distribution of Net Ware in Northern Europe. I 'Wafer' ceramics; 2 Area of Net Ware; 3 The area in the early
stage.
tery cultures remains low given the objective of detailed reconstructions of the fonnation processes of
these cultures within the whole area and the goal of
modelling these processes using quantitative data.
The practical realization of these goals is associated with the solving of certain methodological
and technical problems in the descriptive analysis
of archaeological materials.
It remains clear that with such an approach, the
focal points of analysis are to a major degree limited to attempts to reflect adequately the changing
of features of culture in space and time, as well as
to elucidate their degree of mutual correlation, i.e.
the stability of combinations of features determin-
52
ing the uniqueness of the local archaeological cultures.
It should be emphasised that process whereby
any stratum of antiquities forms is unique. The appearance of prehistoric culture greatly differs in the
various parts of the area of Net Ware. Accordingly,
concrete schemes and, naturally, the results of descriptive analysis will differ considerably, for instance in northern Scandinavia, Karelia and the districts of the northern Volga basin. The methods of
analysis should obviously be based on similar principles conditioned by the unity of objects. Otherwise, a mosaic of incompatible fragments will result. For example, it is impossible to compare many
descriptions based on the method of the 'verbal
portrait', or statistical reports on pottery based on
counts of the numbers of vessels (Kosmenko 1992;
1993) with those based on the fragments of pottery
in collections (Patrushev 1989). These problems
and the problem of the degree of minuteness in
analysis are to be discussed and conventionally
solved.
The present survey presents the experiences and
results of a systematic analysis of Bronze Age Net
Ware culture in Karelia (Kosmenko 1992; 1993).
The available archaeological materials are represented by five categories: dwelling sites, remains
and traces of various constructions, ceramics, lithic
artefacts, evidence of metallurgy, and individual
bronze artefacts.
DWELLING SITES
At present (1994), 83 sites with Bronze Age net
Ware are known from the Republic of Karelia (Fig.
2). There are mainly represented by complexes of
artefacts at multistrata settlements. Dwelling sites
of a single stratum are found only rarely. All the
dwelling sites can be conventionally assigned to
three groups according to their area and the minimum number of vessels obtained: large sites of
over 1000 square metres and over 100 vessels; medium-sized sites up to 1000 square metres in area
(10-50 vessels); and short-term sites up of to 200
square metres with usually only 1-2 vessels (Fig.
2).
An analysis of the geographic locations of the
sites in various parts of Karelia reveals a pronounced tendency towards smaller numbers of
sites and a smaller quantity of materials in the
northern direction and to a lesser extent in the western direction from the eastern parts of the Lake
Onega basin (Fig. 2). In southeastern Karelia, 37
sites are known, including the only large (Kelka
ill) and seven medium-sized ones, with a total of
some 400 vessels. There are 24 sites in southwestern Karelia, including 6 medium-sized ones, with a
total of around 200 vessels. In the northeastern
Lake Ladoga district eight sites exist, with about
100 vessels, and in the White Sea basin are 14 sites
with some 70 vessels.
The tendency towards the reduction of this stratum of antiquities in the outlying, especially northern, parts of this area is quite distinct if in spite of
the lack of precise data one uses comparative materials from adjacent territories. According to estimates by I. S. Manjuhin, there are 85 sites with Net
Ware south of Karelia, in the Kargopol and Belozero areas. On the whole, they contain more ves-
sels than their Karelian counterparts.
Over 20 sites in the southern and western parts of
the basin of Lake Ladoga and in the eastern Baltic
region south of the Gulf of Finland are on the whole
poor in material except for the rather large dwelling
site of Ust-Rybezhna II (Gurina 1961; Graudonis
1967; LOugas 1970; Timofeev 1993). Over 20 sites
on the Karelian isthmus and in southern Finland
contained undetermined numbers of vessels of Net
Ware. Several dozen sites poor in finds are known
from northern Fennoscandia (Meinander 1954;
J!1lrgensen & Olsen 1987; Hulthen 1991; Huurre
1983; Lavento 1992).
Over 50 sites with Net Ware are known from the
basic of the upper and middle Volga, but often only
as an admixture in the settlements of the Pozdnyakovo and Prikazan cultures of the Late Bronze
Age. Thirty relatively homogeneous complexes of
Net Ware demonstrate the obvious reduction in the
number of sites and materials towards the mouth of
the River Kama (Patrushev 1989). Accordingly the
maximum concentration of sites and materials, i.e.
the main volume of Bronze Age Net Ware, is to be
found in the areas between the upper Volga and
Lake Onega.
Bronze Age dwelling sites in Karelia only partially point to the traditional topographic pattern of
locations at the mouths and sources of rives flowing into large lakes (Fig. 2). In contrast with
Eneolithic sites, they are almost absent on the
sandy shores of remote bays, another tradition of
settlement pattern.
THE PLAN AND LAYOUT OF
DWELLING SITES
At Karelian Bronze age sites, the cultural layer usually extends along the shore of a body of water in
strips 10-13 metres wide and up to 150 metres
long. The area of mass concentration of artefacts
around one or several dwelling centres is usually
limited to 300-500 square metres at large and medium-sized settlements and 50 square metres at
short-term sites. The dwelling centres contain evidence of repeated occupation in the form of numerous disorderly situated hearths and aggregations of
artefacts. Short-term sites of the Elmenkoski contain traces of single occupations.
Owing to several reasons, the remains of dwellings are rarely found. Usually, traces of fire in the
form of charcoal lenses up to 1.5 metres in diameter
are observed, but stone-laid hearths are found more
rarely. Pot sherds, stone artefacts and remains of
bones are concentrated around them. Field work at
Kelka ill in southeastern Karelia revealed the re53
IE
III
w
..
U
c;
I»
...
Z
III
)(
Q,
••
\
'1
.a
"-.
·It.6. .• ,.
""
.~
'BonorQACK8R o6nac'ri.
Fig. 2. Karelian sites of the Net Ware culture. a- mediwn; 0- small; 8-large settlements; z -complexes; I Somboma
I; 2,3 Malaya Poga I, II; 4 Bostilovo II; 5 Kevasalma; 6 Matkalahta I; 7 Poga I; 8-10 OhtomaI-ill; 11-14 Kelka
I-IV; 15 Nizhnayaja Kolonsha I; 16 lleksa II; 17,18 Tonda I, IV; 19 Koskosa1ma; 20 Vodla I; 21,22 Suhaya
Vodla I, II; 23 Shagnozero; 24 Vodla V; 25 Vodla Gurij; 32 Chemaya Rechka V; 33 Muromskoe ill; 34 Nemena; 35 Povenchanka IV, 36 Voinavolok XXXIV; 37 Seletskoe ill; 38 Sheltozero I; 39 Sainavolok; 40 Tomitsa,
41,42 Pichevo ill; VII; 43 Verhovie I; 44 Suna VI; 45 Syamozero II; 46 Shapnavolok; 47-48 Malaya Suna I, IX;
49,50 Chuinavolok I, II; 51-54 Lahta I-ill, XI; 55-57 Kudoma IX-XI; 58 Cheranga I; 59 Vyatchelskoe II; 60
Svyatozero vm; 61 Chudozero I; 62 Salostrov I; 63-69 Olonka I, Ia; II-VI; 7G--76 Gorelyi Most II-Vill; 77,78
Zolotets vm, XV; 79 Sukkozero ill; 80 Ondozero IV; 81 Tunguda ill; 82 Bohta II; 83 Elmenkoski.
54
mains of an oval dwelling measuring 6 x 3.5 metres
and originally situated above ground. The dwelling
had two entrances and stone hearths in the centre
and near one of the entrances. An originally aboveground dwelling of roundish shape, measuring 3.2
x 3.0 metres was excavated at Elmenkoski in northwestern Karelia. To all appearances, these dwellings resembled skin-tents. Traces of other constructions including storage pits and specialized locations for metallurgical production are lacking in
Karelia. Nor are there any rectangular semi-dugout
constructions which are typical of the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic of Karelia (Pankrushev 1988;
Vitenkova 1991).
Semi-dugout dwellings of round shape, however,
are known from the southern parts of the Net Ware
area, at Ust-Rybezhna n (Gurina 1961) on the
southern coast of Lake Ladoga and in the oldest
layers of the fortified settlement of Dyakovsky
(Krasnov 1964; Smimov 1974). In the Volga region, rectangular above-ground dwellings have
also been found (Smimov 1974, Patrushev 1989),
but roundish semi-dugouts are the oldest type
(Krasnov 1964).
Summing up the available infonnation on the
dwelling sites of the Bronze Age in Karelia, we can
conclude that the population which produced Net
Ware followed the rather mobile life of forest hunters and fishers, as dictated by adaptation to the local environment. There are no features of settled
life as in the Volga basin. The existence of a nomadic lifestyle as indirectly testified by materials
from the northernmost regions of the area have not
yet been observed. Throughout the Bronze Age, the
way of life of the population did not appreciably
change.
CERAMICS
From collections from 23 sites in Karelia, 547 vessels were chosen as suitable for statistical counts.
Selected for this purpose were the upper parts of
pots with a completely or mostly preserved ornamental zone and the profile preserved.
In the majority of the vessel the diameter at the
mouth is 25-35 cm; pots measuring less than 15 cm
or over 40 cm in mouth diameter are unique. The
pots were possibly made for shaping the clay on
blocks or through the addition of clay coils as in the
vessels of the Late Neolithic-Eneolithic, but with a
partial overlapping of one strip of clay over the
other, followed by the smoothing of walls.
Sand and crushed stone were mostly used as temper. However, 10-15% of the pottery, particularly
in Eastern Karelia contained burnt organic temper
in addition to sand, and 0.4% had temper combining sand and asbestos fibres. There was no marked
correlation between temper and other features of
the pottery.
The 'net' or reticular imprints on the outer surface (only rarely on the inside) are the densely applied, superficial and shallow impressions of a long
comb stamps, sometimes changing over to hatching, i.e. to combing with the same tools, or to a
smoothed surface (Figs. 3-5). There are no real
'textile' ceramics in the Karelian material, although finds from the Vodlozero district in southeastern Karelia include individual vessels with the
impressions of cord wound on a rod (Kelka ill,
Bostilovo ll). Vessels with smooth surfaces are rare
(Figs. 4:9; 5:4), although their number obviously
grows in the late phase of the Bronze Age (Tonda
IV, Bostilovo n, Gorelyi Most V).
The making of reticular imprints is a special
mode of the technical decoration of the vessel surface, being similar to hatching, smoothing, polishing or enamelling. Technical decoration is ornamentation proper, nor a constructional-technological way of manufacturing a vessel, but a procedure
giving pottery an aesthetically complete appearance. The diversity of 'net-technical' variants
within the area testifies to the fact that it was not the
technique itself but the result of the operation that
was important to the potters; in other words, it perfonned as aesthetic function. Reticular imprints
made with comb stamps are typical of the corresponding Bronze Age culture of the Volga region
and the northwestern regions of Russia (Patrushev
1989; Manjuhin 1989). During the Iron Age, 'textile' ceramics with impressions offabrics and other
organic material spread among the fortified settlements of the Volga region. The ancient 'pseudotextile' ceramics characterizes the lower strata of
these settlements (Rosenfeldt 1974). A reticulated
surface is one of the main distinguishing features of
Bronze Pottery in Karelia, but it provides no clearly
defined infonnation on the cultural origins of this
period.
A statistical analysis of the shapes of Net Ware
vessels from Karelia shows that they can serve as
the source of a great deal of information. Due to the
abundance of profiled vessels, the composition of
shape markedly differs from the preceding asbestos-tempered pottery of the Late Copper Age. The
origin of the latter can be determined by distinguishing prototypes in the foregoing or simultaneous cultures of the neighbouring regions and by
analysing the spatial variations of these shapes. The
Bronze Age pottery of Karelia includes four variants of profiled vessels with necks (68.1 %) and two
kinds of unprofiled pots (31.9%) out of a total of
55
10
Fig. 3. Pot sherds with reticulated (1- 3, 5-8, 12), hatched (4,9, 11) and smoothed surfaces (10). 1 Malaya Suna IX; 2
Ohtoma I; 3,4 Ohtoma ill; 5,6 Pichevo m; 7 Elmenkoski; 8-12 Kelka m.
56
·.
.... .
, _,·,·<r~;~l)v
,,,c~
....
Fig. 4. Vessels of the Net Ware culture from Karelia with zonal ornaments. 1 Malaya Suna IX; 24,6,8,9,11,12,17,19,21,22 Kelka ill; 5,15,18 Ohtoma ill; 7 Ohtoma I; 10 Pichevo ill; 13 Poga I; 14 Lahta ill; 16
Chernaya Rechka V; 20 Somboma I.
57
547 specimens belonging to three types of different
origin.
Type A (42.5 %) is represented by variants 1 and
2, absent among the local pottery of the Eneolithic
and ultimately originating from the corresponding
vessel shape of the Fatyanovo culture of the Early
Bronze Age in the upper Volga region (Krainov
1987). Variant 1 (17.8%) includes round-based,
nor very high vessels of bomb shape with rims
curved slightly outwards, a deep neck and convex
sides (Figs. 4:1,3,5,17,19; 5:11,12,15). They are
not found in northern Karelia, although in the
southern parts they amount to 24.1 % of the pottery. Vessels of variant 2 (24.7%) are a derivative
form of variant 1, being more distant from the
original prototype. They have a short rim, a neck
that is not very deep and a more elongated body,
sometimes with a small, flat bottom (Fig. 4:14,18;
5: 13,14,16,17,19). In southern Karelia they account for 26.4% of the material concerned, while in
the northern parts they amount to only 9.2%.
The vessels of variants 3 and 4 are related to type
B. Their origin is most probably associated with the
Late Bronze Age Pozdnyakovo culture of the Oka
basin. It reflects the indirect influence of the steppe
cultures of this period, possibly the Srubnaya culture. Round- and flat-bottomed pots of medium
height with broad necks and moderately convex
walls (Fig. 4:8,10,15,16,22; 5:4,13,21) are characteristic of variant 3 (24.8%). They are most numerous in southeastern Karelia (30.1 %), being found
less often in the northern (16.3%) and western
(12.4%) districts. It goes without saying that they
are more numerous in the Kargopol and Belozero
areas than in Karelia (26.7%). Although vessels of
similar shape are quite widespread in various
Bronze Age cultures of the forest zone, the complex of features makes it possible to link their appearance in Karelia directly with the Pozdnyakovo
culture. This is most clearly illustrated by not very
large flat-bottomed vessels with broad necks and a
weakly pronounced rib on the body that are found
in southeastern Karelia. Their origin can be connected with similar vessels of the Srubnaya and
Pozdnyakovskaya cultures (0.6%, Fig. 4:20,21).
These have not been found in other parts of Karelia,
but are known from the Kargopol and Belozero regions (2%).
Unprofiled vessels without necks of variants 5
and 6 are related to type C (32.1 %). It is difficult to
establish the precise origin of these pottery forms
because of their wide distribution among the Stone
and Copper Age cultures of the forest zone. Variant 5 (28.3%) is represented by relatively high
round- and flat-bottomed vessels with straight
upper parts or slightly contoured necks (Fig.
58
4:2,4,6,9,11,12,17; Fig. 5:7,9,10,20).
Their distribution in Karelia is quite noteworthy.
In the southeastern parts they constitute 27.1 % of
the material concerned; in the west 14%; and in the
White Sea basin 74.5%. They completely predominate in the northernmost regions (J~rgensen &
Olsen 1987; Hulthen 1991), but according to I. S.
Manjuhin they amount to only 5.6% in the
Kargopol and Belozero regions. Shallow roundbottom vessels of variant 6 with slightly concave
upper parts (3.8%, Fig. 5:5,6) are the most archaic
ones of the type in Karelia. The prototypes of this
form are easily found in the preceding cultures of
the forest zone, especially among Pit-Comb Ware.
The general tendency in spatial change in the
forms of Net Ware in the northern parts of its area,
including Karelia, is an obvious decrease in the
number and variety of profiled pot shapes of southern origin. Hence the composition of forms closest
to the prototypes can be traced back to the earliest
sites of the Net Ware culture in the territory where
it initially formed, i.e. in the Volga basin.
The shapes of the rim profiles of Net Ware in
Karelia are quite varied and include 5 variants.
Rims with straight or rounded profiles predominate
(84.1 %). Less common are rims with profiles inclined inward (10%) or outward (3.3%) or of
slightly acute or tapering shape (1.7%). Only in the
White Sea region are there rims with a thickening
of the inner edge (0.9%). The origin of the bevelled
and tapered rims is most probably associated with
similar forms in the preceding Pit-Comb Ware materials.
Pottery ornamentation is one of the most reliable
sources of information on the origin of the Net
Ware culture. It should be note that the spread of
Net Ware in Karelia marked the beginning of a new
stage in the general process of regressive change in
the ornamentation of hand-turned ceramics in the
forest zone that had been in progress throughout its
period of manufacture (Kosmenko 1993). The ornamentation of early Net Ware in Karelia still displays features peculiar to the ceramic patterns of
the Neolithic and Eneolithic periods, but on the
whole ceramic ornamentation rapidly deteriorated
in the Bronze Age. Moreover, there was a very
rapid spatial deterioration of ornaments in marginal, particularly northern, parts of the area. This
process can be illustrated with quantitative data if
we conventionally class all ornaments into two
main categories: first, the archaic 'zonal' patterns
of more than two motifs or elements alternating
vertically (Fig. 4), and secondly, the simplified
'border' ornaments including 1-2 elements (Fig.
5). As a result, zonal ornamental patterns in southeastern Karelia account for 34%, while the 'border'
ornaments constitute 61.1%. The proportion of
undecorated pottery is 1.9%. In western Karelia the
respective figures are 31.2%, 67.8% and 0.8%; in
the White Sea region 14.5%, 85.5% and 0%.
Net Ware in Finland (Meinander 1954; Huurre
1979) and the southern parts of the East Baltic region (Graudonis 1967) is decorated far less richly
than in Karelia, and in northern Scandinavia and
the Kola Peninsula it usually bears no ornamentation except for individual vessels with bands of pits
or impressions (Jjljrgensen & Olsen 1987; Hulthen
1991). In a similar way, though not completely, the
ornamentation of Net Ware of the beginning of the
first millennium BC declines in the southern and
southeastern parts of the area concerned, i.e. the
Oka and middle Volga regions (Popova 1975;
Patrushev 1989). Thus, the most richly ornamented
Net Ware with early features is chiefly concentrated in the original territory between the upper
Volga and Lake Onega. It is precisely here that the
features of the initial cultures, i.e. their genetic
components that have survived in more or less integral form, can be revealed in their most vivid manifestations.
In order to reflect the process of change in the
ornamentation of Bronze Age pottery in Karelia, all
ornaments should be classified according to the
structural-technical principle, which is aimed at detecting the dynamics of change in time and space of
the main technical modes and structural types of
patterns.
Ornaments appear on 98.5% of the vessels. The
technique of decoration is relatively simple. The
most common features are bands of round pits
(83.5 %), which in 85-90% of observed cases were
made with notched tools and have uneven walls.
Ornaments made with comb stamps (48.6%) are
more varied and include bands, zig-zag designs and
more rarely groups of impressions and rhomboid
figures. Short stamps with 2-3 denticulations were
used more rarely (9.5%); incised ornaments (2%)
usually copy comb pattern as their simplified variants. Bands of shallow oval or triangular impressions are numerous (45%), while tubular (0.9%)
and ' cat' s paw' imprints (0.7%) are rare. Extremely
rare are bands of impressions made with twine
wound around a rod (1.5%) and cord impressions
(0.2%).
In all vessels ornamentation follows a horizontal
division, being concentrated in the upper parts; the
lower parts and vessel bases were not decorated.
Zonal ornaments (occurring in 31.4% of the vessels) occupy 113 - 112 of the body (Fig. 4). In order
to establish their genetic components, it is rational
to divide them into simple and geometricized
groups. Simple zonal ornaments (16.6%) are repre-
sented by several main variants: sparse bands of
pits (7.3%, Fig. 4: 1-4) and more rarely impressions
(1.5%, Fig. 4:8), as well as combinations of pits
and impressions (5.3%, Fig. 4:5-7), including the
archaic combination of pits and comb stamps
(5.3%, Fig. 4:6-7). The structure and technique of
these patterns demonstrate a close resemblance
with the ornaments of Late Pit-Comb Ware in the
forest zone of European Russia. At the same time,
they deteriorated markedly.
Geometricized zonal ornaments (14.8%) are of
mixed origin, but nevertheless typical of the 'forest' Bronze Age. They are represented by three
main variants: comb band, or belt, ornaments (8%,
Fig. 4:9-14), framed zig-zag designs (4%, Fig.
4:15-17), and complex compositions in which various geometrical ornaments alternated (2.8%, Fig.
4:18-22).
It is difficult to carry out any genetical analysis
of these ornaments, as the material combines ornament motifs of different origin, which usually
changed in comparison with prototypes. The motifs
consisting of groups of impressions (Fig. 4: 18-20),
the prototypes of which are distributed among
Neolithic Pit-Comb Ware from Karelia to the basin
of the River Oka (Gurina 1961; Tsvetkova 1963;
Pankrushev 1978) are identified quite easily. Complex ornaments combining comb bands, zig-zag
designs and groups of imprints, find parallels
among the Bronze Age 'Post-Fatyanovo' ceramics
of the Belozero region, the upper reaches of the
River Sukhona and the upper Volga region (Gurina
1963). There are also ornaments specific to the
Pozdnyakovo culture: triangular festoons of impressions, cord bands, crossed rhomboid designs
and especially bands or belts of pits on the inner
surface forming bulges ('pearls') on the outer wall
(Fig. 4:7,9,11,15,18,19). A specific motif of Net
Ware in Karelia is a band of pits with notched or
stamped imprints between the pits (Fig.
4:5,7,15,18,19,22), which is not found in Copper
and Iron Age pottery. This motif also appeared in
the Pozdnyakovo culture (Popova 1985).
The border ornaments of Net Ware (67.1 %) are
simplified variants of zonal patterns, and they show
how quickly the process of regressive change in ornamentation took place in different parts of the area
concerned. Like the zonal designs, the border ornaments are also subdivided into simple and geometricized groups and they include the same principal variants. They consist of one - more rarely
two - zones of 1-2 motifs, having a total width of
no more than one-third of the vessel's body (Fig.
5).
Among the simple borders (45.5%), single or
double bands of pits predominate (20%; Fig. 5:159
:ii,'"'' ",.
,"
• .'.' I.~/'···;-·'···'I'''··'#/:l:.
-
;....--
,.,,---
-
Fig. 5. Vessels of the Net Ware culture from Karelia with border ornaments. 1-3,17-20 Ohtoma m; 5 Somboma I;
4,6,9-11,13,15,21 Kelka ill; 7 Pichevo m; 12 Kudoma XI; 14 Elmenkoski; 16 Malaya Suna IX.
60
3,5-8,12). In some cases 'pearl' belts occur (2.3%;
Fig. 5:4,9). Combinations of pit belts and rows of
comb imprints (14.7%; Fig. 5:10--11) are numerous, while combinations of pits and various impressions occur more rarely (8.8%).
Geometricized borders (21.6%) most often consistofbands of comb impressions (14%; Fig. 5:1315); only rarely of bands of incised markings
(1.3%; Fig. 5:16). Also among the material are
horizontal single or criss-crossing zig-zag designs
(4.5%; Fig. 5:17-20) and groups of comb impressions, usually enframed within the same belt
(1.8%; Fig. 5:19,20). These ornaments often have
a structural centre consisting of belts of pits or
'pearls' .
All the principal techniques except pits were
used for rim-top decoration (68.5%). Vessels with
border ornaments mostly have undecorated rims.
On the rims are oblique imprints of comb (54.5%)
or 2-3 notched stamps (3.1 %), comb zig-zag designs (2%), groups of impressions (0.5%), incised
lines (1.1 %) or zig-zags (1.1 %). The inner top edge
in some vessels is decorated with similar motifs
(9.5%; Fig. 4:11,12,17,21), mostly in southeastern
Karelia (6%), the White Sea region (3%) and the
southwestern districts of the area (0.5%).
The presented information illustrates the composition of Bronze Age pottery ornamentation in
Karelia. It should be noted that in addition to the
above-mentioned tendency of a deterioration of
spatial ornamentation towards the north and west,
there is also a decrease in the number of certain elements of southern origin. For example, the 'PostFatyanovo' zonal ornaments are found only in the
eastern parts of the Lake Onega catchment. The
proportion of vessels with bands of 'pearls'
(amounting to 23.6% in the Kargopol and Belozero
regions) was only 14.3% in southeastern Karelia,
4.1 % in southwestern Karelia, and 5.4% in the
White Sea region. They also occur sporadically in
Finland (Meinander 1954; Huurre 1983), but are
naturally lacking in northern Fennoscandia. In the
border ornamentation found in the northern and
western territories of the Net Ware area it is already
difficult to distinguish genetic components that are
still quite clearly traced in southeastern Karelia.
Yet even there homogeneous elements do not form
stable combination. In other words, heterogeneous
components are already strongly mixed and considerably changed.
LITHIC ARTEFACTS
The stone artefacts of the Bronze Age lack special
traits, which is why it is difficult to distinguish
them among the materials of multistrata settlements of the Stone-Copper Ages. In Karelia, however, we have succeeded in determining complexes
of tools in single-stratum sites (Ust-Vodla II, Bostilovo II) and in a number of multistrata settlements
(Suna VI, Pichevo ill, Kelka ill and Elmenkoski).
It should be kept in mind that the specific composition of lithic assemblages depends on the features
of the raw materials concerned: flint, quartz and
slate. The use of these raw minerals in turn primarily depends on the distance of the sites from deposits of raw materials.
Throughout the whole period of utilizing stone in
Karelia from the Mesolithic to the Iron Age, flint
was preferred for the majority of tools and implements. Quartz was used when flint was not available and slate was mainly the material for slashing
and gouging implements. There are no flint deposits in Karelia. They are found within the Devyatinskaya layer deposits of the Carboniferous era
stretching in a narrow north-south zone from the
lower reaches of the River Onega to the southern
shore of Lake Onega (Kravtsov 1959). Eastern flint
penetrated far west into Finland and northern Scandinavia (Kinnunen et al. 1985; Huggert 1984),
whereas quartz was rarely used in the east. The area
of the mass use of flint covers the eastern parts of
Karelia. Throughout the period when lithic materials were utilized, including the Bronze Age, flint
artefacts accounted for 95-99% of the total number
of flint and quartz tools. In the western regions of
Karelia, the proportions of flint implements
strongly fluctuated between 36 and 80%, depending on the geographical location of dwelling sites
(Kosmenko 1993). The dynamics of the use of
quartz and flint raw materials during the period of
stone utilization in Karelia is characterized by a
successive increase of flint entering the western
districts. Interestingly, the Bronze Age witnesses a
kind of peak in the use of flint in western Karelia
even in comparison with the Iron Age, which reflects the close connections of the Net Ware culture
with the eastern regions (Kosmenko 1993).
Slate, deposits of which are known from southern Karelia, especially near Lake Onega, was quite
widely used during the Bronze Age. In northern
Karelia, mainly complete tools are found, and few
remains of manufacture. The Bronze Age population thus utilized and developed local mineral resources, but its degree of adaptation in this respect
was not quite high.
The composition of Bronze Age implements on
the whole is common for Karelia. Scrapers of various shape account for around 60% of all tools.
Wide flint scrapers are characteristic of complexes
containing Net Ware (Fig. 6:1,2). There are also a
61
10
14
11
12
16
15
19
20
Fig. 6. Tools of flint (1-15) and slate (16-21) of the Net Waxe culture from Karelia. 1,5,6,11 Gorelyi Most ill; 2,15
Elmenkoski; 3,12,16,18,21 Gorelyi Most VI; 4,17 Usta vodlaII; 7,10 OhtomaI; 14 Ohtoma ill; 13 Gorelyi Most
V; 19,20 Kelka ill.
62
few finds of cutting and piercing implements and
knives of flint (Fig. 6:6,14). Arrowheads and spearheads of flint are represented by three types: leafshaped, a rare type with a wide flat haft, and a more
widespread projectile point with a straight or
slightly concave base (Fig. 6:7-13). Also among
the finds is a slate point with a wide notched haft
and an engraved schematic design. This object is
obviously of Scandinavian origin (Fig. 7:3).
Rectangular axes with symmetrical blades and
adzes with asymmetrical blades predominate
among the slate tools, while slotted gouging tools
of the chisel type are found less often (Fig.
6:14,16,18,19). The material from southern Karelia
includes short flint axes (Suna VI, Kelka III). There
are also individual finds of perforated slate axes,
hammering implements (Fig. 6:15-21), pendants,
casting moulds for bronze celts (Fig. 7:2), and
quartzite sinkers with grooves along the sides.
The majority of the Bronze Age tools have no
distinctive traits relating to the same material of the
Eneolithic. There are no gouges, long slate arrowheads of triangular and rhomboid section, or other
objects of East Baltic type such as amber pendants
and buttons which were characteristic of the Copper Age culture of Karelia. A number of new tool
types emerged and the correlations of the lithic raw
materials changed. During the late phase of the
Bronze Age the number and variety of tool types
used for slashing decreased probably as a result of
the introduction of bronze celts.
METAL PRODUCTION
Information on the sources and production of nonferrous metals in the Bronze Age is limited and reflects the low general level of metallurgy among
the Net Ware culture. The natural copper deposits
near Lake Onega, which were exploited during the
Eneolithic were probably not utilized and developed during the Bronze and Iron Ages (Kosmenko
1993). Analyses of non-ferrous metals from certain
dwelling sites in Lake Ladoga region (Gurina
1961), southern Finland (Meinander 1954) and the
southeastern shore region of Lake Onega (Kosmenko 1993) have shown them to be bronze, although its sources are not precisely known. At least
in southern Karelia bronze was most probably obtained from the Volga region in the form of imported goods.
However, the early and late Bronze Age sites of
Kelka III and Tonda IV respectively revealed
traces of the smelting of metal. These are the fragments of small drossed crucibles with net imprints
on the outer surface. In the late stage, the celts of
the Akozino-Miilar type and those combining features of the Maaninka and Ananyino types appear
(Fig. 7: 1,2). In the late stage of the Bronze Age in
Karelia the casting of metal is indicated by finds of
compound stone moulds. The sources of this tradition are most probably connected with the Volga
region.
In the northern parts of this area, including
Karelia, no reliable information on iron production
is available. The superficial conclusions of some
researchers (Btjusov 1940; Gurina 1961; Anpilogov 1966) concerning the connections of Net Ware
and traces of iron smelting at a number of sites in
southern Karelia and the Ladoga region are not
based on verified facts. These sites also contain
Iron Age and medieval assemblages, including
aceramic ones, that are usually connected with furnaces and iron slag.
Concluding the survey of the main categories of
materials, we should mention individual fmds from
southern Karelia of flat clay discs 3--6 cm in diameter with holes in the centre (Fig. 7:4,5). These
have been identified as spindle whorls (Gurina
1961) or as fire-making tools (Btjusov 1940), but
their precise function remains to be determined.
ORIGINS OF THE CULTURE
As a result of an analysis of all the available data,
N. N. Gurina's hypothesis concerning the upper
Volga origins of the Net Ware culture in Karelia is
corroborated. The composition of genetic components suggests that it most probably formed originally in the northern left-bank: districts of this region and later spread mainly northwards to the
Barents Sea coast and eastwards to the middle
Volga region. The monocentric character of the
emergence of this culture can be traced back to successive divergent changes in a number of elements
that were independent of the influence of the local
environment (shapes, details, ornaments in material) and other elements susceptible to adaptation,
demonstrating local ' colour' (camp-sites, topography, dwellings, stone tools etc.). The local cultures
of the Eneolithic did not participate in shaping the
Bronze Age culture of Karelia, but the problems of
local cultures participating in other, particularly
marginal, territories of the Net Ware area remain of
topical interest.
CHRONOLOGY
The description of spatio-temporal stages during
the existence of a culture or group of cultures with
63
,--I
I
I
)
...
<
I
I
I
\
,
\
\
,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
,.
\
\
\
,
4
\
\
\
I
I
I
/
/
./
3
5
Fig. 7. Artefacts of bronze (I), slate (2,3) and clay (4,5) of the Bronze Age from Karelia. 1 Kudoma XI; 2 Elmenkoski;
3 Ohtoma ill; 4-5 Kelka ill.
Net Ware encounters the problem of lacking or inconsistent information for dating the sites. So far,
two chronological stages can be established in
Karelia with regard to the appearance of the ceramics, other artefacts and individual radiocarbon
dates.
64
The dwelling sites of the early stage, belonging on
the whole to the second half of the second millennium Be are known only from southeastern
Karelia (Kelka ill, Somboma I, Ohtoma I and ill
and probably Tomitsa and Pichevo ill). These assemblages contain an average of around 50% of
pots with archaic zonal ornaments, some 10% with
'pearl' bands, and roughly 70% with decorated
rims. The Net Ware culture probably appeared in
this culture slightly after the middle of the second
millennium BC. The radiocarbon date obtained for
a hearth in a dwelling at the typologically earliest
site of Kelka ill is 3100 ± 70 BP (TA-2268) and
that for the bottom of the cultural layer adjacent to
the dwelling is 3520 ±80 BP (TA-2269). Meanwhile, comparative analysis shows that in the early
stage the dwelling sites of Karelia exhibit less
'Post-Fatyanovo' and Pozdnyakovo elements than
in the Kargopol and Belozero regions and they are
further removed from the prototypes. Maximum
incomplete similarity is observed with pottery not
of the early but of the middle (14th-13th centuries
BC) and late stages of the Pozdnyakovo culture
(end of the second - beginning of the ftrst millennium BC) of the River Oka, as according to T.B.
Popova (1985).
The line between the early and late stages is quite
conventional. On the whole, it coincides with the
broad and rapid spread of Net Ware in the forest
zone around the tum of the second and fust millennia BC, as noted by several Russian researchers
(Chalikov 1960; Tretyakov P. N. 1966; Tretyakov
V.P. 1975; Popova 1985; Patrushev 1989). During
the late stage, in the fust half of the OOt millennium BC, the culture of Net Ware spread throughout the whole territory of Karelia. The most signiftcant materials have been obtained from the following sites: Bostilovo n, Tonda IV, Kelka I, UstVodla n in the southeast; Kudoma X & XI, Suna
VI, Malaya Suna IX, Olonka IV in the southwest;
and Gorelyi Most ill & V and Elmenkoski in northern Karelia. At these sites less than one-third of the
vessels had zonal ornaments; 'pearl' belts occur individually or are absent, and the rims are decorated
in less than 60% of the pottery. The composition of
shape changes towards the disappearance of the
markedly proftled vessels of type A. The bronze
celts of the Akozinsko-Mlilar type appear, and in
the southeast imprints of short comb stamps spread
in the pottery evidently as a result of contacts with
the early Ananyino culture of the Volga region.
The site of Ust-Vodla n is dated to the 2700 ±
100 BP (TA-1892). At Kudoma XI, in the western
part of the Lake Onega basin, a dating to the 8th7th centuries BC is provided by a socketed axe of
the Akozino-Mlilar type, if we accept the chronology of the Volga region for these tools (Chalikov
1977). The chronology of the sites by the coast of
Lake Ladoga near the River Olonka is determined
by their position on the bank formation of the maximum Subboreal transgression, for example UstRybezhna n on the River Pasha (Gurina 1961). The
maximum transgression deposits along the north
coast of Lake Ladoga are radiocarbon-dated to ca.
1100-1000 BC (Lak et al. 1978). Consequently, all
the known sites there belong to a stage not earlier
than the tum of the second and fIrst millennia BC.
lt is more difficult to determine the chronology of
sites in northern Karelia. On the whole, they belong
to the fust half and perhaps partly to the third quarter of the ftrst millennium BC, as for example the
camp-site of Elmenkoski.
The end of the Net Ware culture in Karelia coincides with the spread of Early Iron Age culture of
the Ananyino type. This process began in the sixthftfth centuries BC in the southeast and came to an
end during the second half of the ftrst millennium
BC in the western districts of Karelia (Kosmenko
1991, 1993).
The problem of the chronology of Net Ware of
1800-700 BC in north Fennoscandia and the overlapping cultural stratum containing so-called ' Arctic' pottery (Kjelml/iY type) of1400 BC-AD 100 is
a topical issue (Jl/irgensen & Olsen 1987; Hulthen
1991). The reason for such a wide range of dates
and overall ageing in comparison with similar pottery in the territories towards the south is explained
by B. Hulthen (1991) by the fact that the inhabitants burnt very old deadwood in their hearths and
ftreplaces.
This is a possible, though hardly the only, reason
for the mass ageing of dates. The procedures of
sampling and analysing charcoal also require to be
checked. In my opinion, the Net Ware of the northern periphery of the area can hardly be dated to earlier than the beginning of the fIrst millennium BC,
and the pottery of ' Arctic' type to earlier than the
middle of the fust millennium BC (Kosmenko
1993). The processes whereby these strata of antiquities formed took place in the vast territories of the
forest zone quite consecutively and the discrepancies of the dates for its phases should be explained
and eradicated.
TERRITORIAL VARIANTS
The changing of various elements of culture during
the process of its spreading determined the formation of local variants also in Karelia. Differences
between the culture of southeastern Karelia and the
more southern territories of the area begin to appear
at an early stage. But these differences did not attain a quantitative threshold, following which it
would be possible to clearly distinguish assemblages visually. In other words, the differentiation
of culture was still insigniftcant at this stage.
In the late stage, differentiation reached its maxi65
mum, but it is still insufficiently studied within this
area. In Karelia, the Onega-Ladoga and White Sea
territorial variants stand out (Kosmenko 1995). Ceramics with ornamentation consisting of bands of
pits alternating with notches is characteristic of
southern Karelia, where it is found in 28.6% (early
stage 9.7%) of the pottery, while in the Kargopol
and Belozero areas in 15.6%, and in northern
Karelia in 16.3%.
Pottery in the White Sea catchment differs considerably from that of southern Karelia. There are
no profiled vessels of variants 1 and 5, nor unprofIled pots of variant 6. The ornamentation is markedly deteriorated. These assemblages are not distinct.
THE NET WARE CULTURE AND THE
FENNO-UGRIAN PROBLEM
An analysis of contents points to various causal relationships of the changes in different elements of
the culture (Kosmenko 1993). This is why the dynamics of their spatio-temporal changes do not coincide as well. A concrete social mechanism of divergent changes, for instance in pottery forms or
ornament, is not to be reconstructed precisely. We
can only surmise that other elements of ancient
ethnoi that are inaccessible to archaeology - language in particular - also underwent considerable
changes.
Many Russian archaeologists traditionally maintain that Net Ware is associated with the ancient
Fenno-Ugrians. This position is based on a superficial retrospective comparison of the medieval
Volga-Finnish and more ancient cultures and is
based on a theory of 'ethnic' features. The failings
of the existing variants of the retrospective method,
permitting inexact and subjective conclusions on a
wide scale, also permit its critical analysis. It
should be stressed that with regard to the Net Ware
culture even those cultures which were its genetic
components completely lacked any elements of
Urallc origin, whereas all the western FennoUgrian languages possess quite a pronounced
Uralic component in their grammar and vocabulary.
Archaeological research over the past few decades has shown that the Net Ware culture in the territories to the north of the Volga was completely
overlapped by and mixed with the Urallc Ananyino
culture during the Early Iron Age. The process of
their hybridization can be well traced from the middle reaches of the Volga to Karelia (Chalikov 1977;
Ishmuratova 1975; Kuzminych 1983; Patrushev
1989; Manjuhin 1991; Kosmenko 1991, 1993).
66
Thus, the Net Ware culture of the Bronze age is not
Fenno-Ugrian as such but served as a powerful
substrate element when the Volga-Finnic and early
northwestern Fenno-Lapp cultures formed.
A comparative analysis of the strata of ancient
lace names in Karelia suggests the conclusion that
the earliest 'Volgic' layer of local names for bodies
of water most probably corresponds to the Net
Ware culture, while the Lapp (Sarni) hydronyms
correspond to the Ananyino stratum of the Iron Age
and the Baltic-Finnish place names to the early medieval culture of the 10th and 11th centuries in
southeastern Karelia (Kosmenko 1993).
In the Volga region and areas to the north there
are no ancient toponyms of unidentified 'Baltic'
appearance corresponding to the stratum of Copper
Age cultures with amber and slate artefacts of Baltic types, or ancient Indo-European toponyms as
traces of Early Bronze Age cultures with Corded
Ware and battleaxes of stone. This situation suggests that the surviving toponyms of this region are
not older than the Late Bronze Age. Interestingly,
the oldest 'Volgic' toponyms are only partially etymologized from the Fenno-Ugrian languages. This
is not a random phenomenon. A similar situation is
found in toponymy and archaeology. To all appearances, it reflects the participation of the local inhabitants of the Volga region and territories further
to the north in the formation of the cultures an languages - or at least the vocabulary - of the western
Fenno-Ugrians during the Early Iron Age.
Acknowledgement
I wish to thank Igor S. Manjuhin for providing unpublished quantitative data on ceramics from the
Kargopol and Belozero regions for this paper.
REFERENCES
AnpiJogov A V. 1966: AHmtnOroB. A.B. APeBBlili
xe.ne30AeJlaTeJ1bBali MacrepcKali Ba ceBePBOM
no6epexbe 03. ClIM03epa. HOBblC DBMHTHHKH HCTOplUI /WCBHeJI Kape.!1HH. MOCKBa - JIeHHlIJ'pSA.
Brjusov A.J. 1940: 6pIOCOB A.H. HcroPBlI ApeBHeit KaPeJJHII.
1THM, BbIII. IX.
ChaJikov AH. 1960: XanHKoB AX. MaTepBaJIhI II:
H3YQeHHIO HcropHH Bace.neHHlI CpeAHero nOBOJIXbll
B HHxHero npHKaMbll B Jnoxy BeoJIHTa H 6poB31>1.
1MA3, T.l.
ChaJikov AH. 1977: XanHKoB A.X. BOJIro-KBMbC B
Haf/anC 3DOJCH PaHHCro )1.(CJlC38 VIn-VI BB. AO B.J.
MOCKBa.
Graudonis J. 1967: rpaYAoHBc H. JI/JTBHH B 3DOJCY
D03J{HCit 6poH3bl H paHHerO )1.(CJlC3HOro BCKa. Para.
Gurina N.N. 1961: fyplDla H.H. .lWeBHSISI HCTOpHSI CeBepo-3ana.Aa eBponeACKoA yaCTH CCCP. MHA 87.
Gurina N.N. 1963: fyplDla H.H. llaMSlTRHKH 3nOXH
6POH3b1 H paHllero xene38 B KOCTpOMCKOM
lloBOnxbC. MHA 110.
Huggert A. 1964. Flint also Came from the East - A Contnbution to the Knowledge of Upper Norrland's Prehistory. Papers in Northern Archaeology. Archaeology and Environment 2.
Hulth~n B. 1991. On Ceramic Ware in Northern Scandi-
navia during the Neolithic, Bronze and Early Iron
Age. Archaeology and Environment 8.
Huurre M. 1979. 9000 vuotta Suomen esihistoriaa. Helsinki.
Huurre M. 1983. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin esihistoria. Pohjois-Pohjanmaan ja Lapin historia I. Kuusamo.
Ishmuratova G.R. 1975: HruMypaTOBa f. P. KepllMllKa
aHaHhIDlCKHX noceneHHA 38Da.AHh~ paAOHOB TaTapHB. CAL
J.,rgensen R. & Olsen B. 1987. Asbestkeramikk i NordNorge. FM 1987.
Kinnunen K et al. 1985: Kinnunen K, Tynni R.,
Hokkanen K. and Taavitsainen J-P. Flint raw materials of prehistoric Finland: rock types, surface textures
and microfossils. Geological Survey of FinUJnd, bull
334.
Kosmenko M.G. 1991: KocMeHKo M.f. "POHCXo~eHHe KynbTYpbl B xpoHonOrBSi naMSlTHHKOB
nepBOJla 6POH3b1 B KapenHH. IIepHolQl3aJQ1J1 H xpoHOJI011lJl apxOOnOrlf'leeKHX II8MJlTHHKOB Kape.nHH.
lleTpo38BOJlCK.
Kosmenko M.G. 1992: KOCHMeHKO M.f.
JIollIIlJle lIoceneHHJI lO)f(HOil Kape.nHH.
MHoroc-
lleTp03a-
BO)lCK.
Kosmenko M.G. 1993: KOCMeHKo M.f. Apxoono11l1JeCKHe KYJIbTYpbllIepHOl(a 6POH3bl - )f(ene3HOro BeKa
B Kape.!1HH. CaaKT-llerep6ypr.
Krainov D.A. 1987: KpaAHoB ~.A. Cl>aTbSlHoBCK3SI
KynbTYpa. Apxeono11lJl CCCP. 3lIOxa 6POH3bl JIeCHoillIOJIOCbl CCCP. MOCKBa.
Krasnov J.A. 1964: KpacHoB 10. A. PaCKOnKH Ha
YcneHcKoM ropo~e. KCHA 102.
Kravtsov A.1. 1959: KPaBQOB A.H. 0 KaMeHHo-yronbHblX OTnO:lKemtSIX BOCTOliHOrO CKnOHa BaJITHIlCKoro IIlHTa B CBSl3H C HX 6oKCHTOHOCHOCTbIO. HAH,
cepHSI reonOrH'lecKaSl, 12.
Lak et al. 1978: JIaK f.le JIYKaWOB A.~., 3KMaH H.M.
HCTOPHSI pa3BHTHlI penI>e4>a. J1a.aO)f(CKoe 03epo.
lleTpo38BOJlCK.
Lavento M. 1992. A preliminary analysis of the ceramics
of the Ruhtinansabni dwelling-site complex in Kainuu, Northern Finland. Fennoscandia archaeologica
IX.
LOugas V.A. 1970: Jlblyrac B.A. llepHoJl paHHerO MeTanna B3CTOHHH Ccepe)lHHbI II TblC)lO H.3. )lO Ha'lana
H.3. AlrropecjJepaT lQIccePTaJQIH KIl1(lt. HCT. HaYK.
TannlDlH.
Manjuhin I.S. 1989: MaHIOXIDI H.C. l103)lHeKaprononbCK3SI KYJIbTYpa. ABTOpecjJepaT lQIcce]JTBlQUf KBHI(.
HCT. HaYK. MocKBa.
Manjuhin I.S. 1991: MaHlOXHH H.C. l103)lHeKapro-
nOJIbCKaSI KYJIbTYpa Bonpocbl nepHO)lH3aQHH H xpoHOnOrHH. XpoHOJIOrHJI H lIepHOlQl3aJQlJl apxeoJI011l1JecKHX IIBMJlTHHKOB KapenHH. lleTpo3aBOJlCK.
Meinatlder C. F. 1954. Die Bronzezeit in Finnland. SMYA
54.
Oshybkina S.V. 1987: Oura6KHHa C.B. 3HeoJIHT H 6poH30BbIA BeK CeBepa eBponellcKoA 'IaCTH CCCP. Apxeon011lJl CCCP. 3lIoxa 6POH3bl JIecHoiI IIOJIOCbl
CCCP. MOCKBa.
Pankrushev G.A. 1978: llaHKpyMeB f.A. Me30JIHT H HeOJIHT Kape.nHJl. 'I. I, II. JIeHlllfI1Ja.A.
Pankrushev G.A. 1988: llaHKpyMeB f.A. lloceneHHJI C
ac6ecToBOA KeplIMIIKoil. IIoceneHHJI .D;peBHeJt KapeJIHH. lleTpo3aBO)lCK.
Patrushev V.S. 1989: llaTpyweB B.C. Y HCTOKOB BoJI)f(CKHX CPHHHOB. :A:owKap-Ona.
Popova T.B. 1985: llonoBa T.B. 3Ha'leHHe OpHaMeHTaJIb~ MOTHBOB H KepaMH'lecKHx 4>oPM )lJ1S1 JlaTHpoBKH naMSlTHHKOB n03)lHHKOBCKOA KYJIbTYpbl aa
Cpe)lHeA OKe. TrHM. BbID. 60.
Rosenfeldt I.G. 1974: P03CH!f>eJIb)lT H.f. KepaMHKa
.[\bSlKOBCKoll KYJIbTYPbI /{bHKOBCKaJI KYJIbTypa.
MOCKBa.
Smirnov K.A. 1974: CMBPHOB K.A. ~SlKOHCK3SI
KYJIbTYPa. ~SlKOBCK3SI KYJIbTypa. MocKBa.
Timofeev V.1. 1993: THMIXIJeeB B.H. fiaMSlTHHKH
Me30JIHTa HHeonHTa perBOHa llerep6ypra HHX MeeTO BCHCTeMe KYJIbTYP 6anTH1lCKOro perHoHa.l{peBHOCTH CeBepo-3Bl1a.aa. C3HKT-lleTep6ypr.
Tretyakov P.N. 1966: TpeTbJlKOB ll.H. (])HHHo-YIpbl,
6/UlTbl H CJ1BBJlHe Ha /1,Henpe H Bonre. MOCKBa-JIeHHHrpa.A.
Tretyakov V.P. 1975: TpeTbSIKOB B.ll. CooTHoweHHe
n03)lHSlKOBCKHX naMlITHHKOB H KYJIbTYPbl CCT'IaToA
KepaMHKH. KCHA 142.
Tsvetkova I.K 1963: l(BeTx:oBa H.K. CroHHKH 6anaxHIDIcKoA KYJIbTYPbl B 06.1JaCTH HH:lKHero re'leHHSI
OKH. MHA 110.
Vitenkova I.F. 1991: BHTeHKoBa H.<D. XpoHonOrBSi
noceneHHA Crpe6eH'laTOSIMO'IHoA HpoM6oSlMO'lHOA
KepaMHKoA. XPOHOJI011lJI H lIepHOJ(H3aJQlJI apxeQJI011l1JCCKHJC IIBMJlTHHKOB Kape.nHJl. llCTP03aBOJlCK.
ABBREVIATIONS
FM - Finskt Museum.
HAH - H3BeCTHSi AKa.AeMHH HayK CCCP. MocKBa.
KCHA - KpaTKHe coo6meHHSI HHCTHTYTa apxeonOrBH.
MocKBa.
MIlA - MaTepHBnbI H HccneJlOBaHHSI no apxeonorHH
CCCP. MocKBa-JIeHHHrpll,Q.
CA - CoBeTCK3SI apxeonorBSi. MOCKBa.
SMYA - Suomen Muinaismuistoyhdistyksen Aikakauskirja.
TfHM - Tpy)lbl focYJl8pcTBeHHOrO HCTOpH'lecKoro
MY3ClI. MOCKBa.
TMA3 - TpYJIbI MapHAcKoll apxeonornqeCKoA JKCne.IlHUHH. RowKap-Ona.
67